U.N. CENSURES SOUTH AFRICA

Press, Volume C, Issue 29643, 13 October 1961, Page 13

U.N. CENSURES SOUTH AFRICA

African Demands For Expulsion

(N2. Prtis Atm—Copyright)

NEW YORK, October 12. A number of African states today were reported to be determined to press demands for the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations after yesterday’s unprecedented censure resolution. Informed sources said that consultations might begin today on strategy. I he Senegalese delegate, Mr Ousmane Soce Diop, said in the General Assembly last night that the United Nations might soon follow the example of other international bodies and expel South Africa because of its apartheid policies. He later told correspondents that Senegal would take definite action before the end of the current Assembly session, and some move might be made “within three or four days.”

The Charter provides under Article six that a member “which has persistenly violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the organisation by the General Assembly upon the recommendations of the Security Council.” In spite of the failure of the Western Powers to vote in defence of South Africa's right to state its case in the United Nations, observers said it appeared highly unlikely that they would permit passage through the council—in which they have the right of veto—of an expulsion motion. Britain. France and the United States withdrew from the voting when the Assembly last night adopted by 67 votes to one (South Africa) with 20 abstentions a Liberian motion censuring South Africa for the statement delivered there yesterday morning by her Foreign Minister (Mr Louw). The resolution said that Mr Louw’s address was “offensive. fictitious and erroneous’* and the Assembly “fully disapproved” of it. Australia and New Zealand were among the nations which cast abstentions. Australia’s Reasons The Australian delegate, Mr James Plimsoll, explaining Australia's decision “like a number of other countries" to abstain in the vote, said his country did not feel an important matter like a censure vote against a sovereign Government and a member of the United Nations was properly taken during a general debate, on a resolution introduced without notice. Mr Plimsoll had said earlier that the ground offered for the Liberian motion was that Mr Louw’s comments had offended the consciences of some delegates. The proposal raised “very serious considerations, not in relation to South Africa, but in relation to the position of all of us here on all questions," he said. It would lay a precedent that a statement by a sovereign Government in the United Nations could be expunged merely because other members of the organisation were opposed to it, and that was a "very serious step.” If the Assembly adopted this “unprecedented” resolution, it would expunge the statement of a sovereign government, and that was important to bear in mind. Tf members were opposed to something they could ‘‘act in a substantive way during debate.” Most of the material placed before the Assembly by Mr Louw was in various

items already on the agenda, l and members could refer to it effectively in due course. To criticise the position of South Africa, one must have before oneself a statement of the position of South Africa, Mr Plimsoll said. How was one to attack a statement, if it had been expunged from the record? he asked. This went far beyond the question of “whether or not! we approved of the Government of South Africa.” the! Australian delegate said. Louw’s Attack Mr Louw accused Westerni nations which helped promote African independence of making future recruits for Moscow and Peking. He made a savage attack on independent Africa during a vigorous defence of his own country’s policies in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Mr Louw said Ghana was a ij)hme example of Africa’s inability to govern itself through Western Parliamentary systems. "There democratic principles have been thrown overboard,” he said. “The ruler of Ghana is flirting with Moscow and Peking. Mali appears to be going the same way, and others are likely to follow. The Congo may well be next.” Liberia and Ethiopia presented an appalling state of living conditions and also of illiteracy, Mr Louw said. By contrast, there is peace, prosperity, and economic stability in South Africa. Non-whites received better treatment in South Africa than natives in most other African nations. Apartheid Defended He defended apartheid as the logical way to advance both whites and non-whites. “Our policy is intended to safeguard what has been built up over three centuries by the whites,” he said. “At the same time it takes account of the political aspirations, as well as of the traditions, cultures, and also material needs of the Bantu peoples." Some observers had speculated that the South African delegation would walk out in protest at the resolution. Instead, Mr Louw announced that, for the first time. South Africa would participate this year in the Assembly debate on racial policies. He said he himself would address the Special Political Committee when the South African racial items came up. Last night’s censure resolution was the first of its kind ever adopted by the United Nations, and observers saw in it a reflection of

’mounting ‘pressure on South Africa. Irrespective of any move to expel the Pretoria Government, the African States were expected again this year to ask for sanctions—a bid which gained simple majority endorsement at the last Assembly but failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds I majority for passage through the plenary body. I The Nigerian Foreign Min- ! ister, Mr Jaja Wachuku, put ! the views of several African J members before the Assembly when he said last night that South Africa should be expelled from the United Nations because it “did not abide by the rules.” While the substance of Mr Louw’s speech gathered little or no support from delegates, some diplomats said they thought he had shown considerable courage in delivering it to an overwhelmingly hostile audience. They said that he had pointed up South Africa’s “isolation” in the United Nations. The Netherlands, to which many South African Afrikaaners trace their descent, was the only Western nation to back the censure motion. A E»utch delegation spokesman afterwards said that South Africa’s race policies deserved censure. Some observers questioned the right of the Assembly to adopt such a resolution ■which, they said, might have created a dangerous precedent and threatened the whole principle of free speech in the United Nations. The chief United States delegate (Mr A. Stevenson) said in a statement that his Government “resolutely” supported this right. It was not explained why this support had not been demonstrated by the United States in a vote against the censure motion. Test Ban Topics The Assembly’s Main Political Committee will meet today to decide whether to give priority to nuclear test ban items on its agenda, as requested by the United States. At its last session on Friday, when the committee began debating the order of its agenda, the Soviet Union urged priority for an item on disarmament, saying that.this, and not nuclear testing, was the fundamental problem. The United States has tabled a resolution calling for two test-ban issues to be taken up as the committee’s first order of business. They are an AmericanBritish item on the “urgent need for a treaty to ban nuclear weapons tests under effective international control,” and an item proposed by India on the “continuation of suspension of nuclear and thermonuclear tests.” The United States wants these two discussed simultaneously, while agreeing that separate consideration should be given to resolutions relating to them. India has tabled a resolution seeking prior discussion for its own test ban item. The General Assembly, hich has yet to conclude its general world affaire debate, is not meeting today. Its next scheduled session is for tomorrow.